Haven't watched in weeks, but I was lurking this thread, so I intended to catch the latest episode.
My thoughts:
- Rachel Maddow and Maher were so embarrassing with their stances on Fast and Furious. It doesn't boil down to "the Black president is not only trying to turn the country into a Socialist State, but he's also selling bad guys guns!" It was a legitimate fuck up on his part and it deserves to be investigated.
Absolutely. "Politicizing" is an overused term, but, man, is it appropriate here.
- Gillespie had good points with Fast and Furious. I also agree with him that environmentalists do get a bit too sensitive some times, and yes if solar didn't have the whole "the ends justifies the means" approach they would be against it. Everything else I disagree with him. The guy is such a man child in which he not only accuses people of being stubborn and partisan, but than proceeds to do the exact same. I don't even think I need to give any examples of this. I'm not surprised of Rachel's attitude toward him at all.
I wouldn't say it was partisan. I think he was attempting to be as impartial and "objective" as possible, but the way he was doing it was not by approaching said issues from a neutral position, it was by condemning the partisan extremes; thereby making his position seem more "Libertarian" or non-partisan. He was attempting to be above the polarization -- he was not.
- Rachel Maddow "I present the news to the audience I don't give them my opinion on it!" What the fuck? Your show is practically a political pundit program. It isn't much different than the O'Reily Factor. Of course you give people your opinion. When you explain for ten minutes why, in your eyes, congress not passing something is a big deal and dissect the causes and effects of the plan, that is by definition giving me your opinion.
I don't think I could draw that equivalency, but, yes. She is not a neutral presenter of information -- that entire notion is inherently flawed. People forget that the numbers never really speak for themselves and that humans are "story-telling animals." Thereby, you must form a narrative in order to communicate information and that thereby taints the already intangible notion of objective information.
The episode was entertaining to say the least.
It was. Was anyone else bothered by Maher when he wished for the exchange regarding fracking to become "less technical" because it was putting him to sleep? I absolutely despise that anti-intellectual pandering to the lowest-common-denominator. It's the absolute opposite of what Stewart does with his program. Let it become heated so maybe we can evince the true position of those commentators. He should have also forced Maddow to answer the Libertarian's questions.
No. Book smarts /= common sense and philosophical smarts.
So, graduating from Stanford and Oxford doesn't make you smarter than most people?
I wouldn't put it in terms of "sense" or "smarts." I don't think being a scholar means one is any less subject to those pesky, yet inexorable cognitive biases. No one ever believes their beliefs to be wrong, you know? Some people are much better at parsing positions and self-reflecting than others, but I don't think she's dumb and dishonest by any stretch. Annoying? Yes. Besides, Drift is a solid book -- though I don't think it exposed me to anything I was totally unfamiliar with. Maddow is very, very smart person. I don't always give much credit to a piece of paper, but being a Rhodes Scholar is truly on another level. But that doesn't make her any less human. Also, what's a philosophical smart? I think her PhD is in philosophy. I think it was Harris that said something along the lines of "Very smart people can come to justify very dumb things, in very smart ways."
Judging by the way she acts, no
Meh. Gun to my head; false dichotomy initiated -- I'd have to say yes, it does. Save for my rant above, of course.
